Truth About Communism: Part IV

Karl Marx defined socialism as a pit stop between capitalism and communism. While sometimes this change happens slowly, it always ends badly. The quickest and worst example of this transition is Chairman Mao, the greatest mass murder of the 20th century. Mao Zedong used his power to crush the Chinese people in a merciless attempt to create a new socialist China. The majority of his crimes came in two distinct waves --- The Great Leap Forward, beginning in 1958, and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. In the end, an estimated 65 million Chinese had died by execution, imprisonment or forced famine.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: The story of America is really one of self-reliance and optimism. And profound faith. Not only in the context of religious freedom, but also in the unprecedented faith in the able to of human beings to control their own destiny. And while the spirit of personal responsibility was extraordinary, strong with our Founders, great patriots like Thomas Paine argued for redistribution of wealth right off the bat. Alexander Hamilton wanted a central bank. They wound up losing those battles, but there were plenty who kept on fighting.

The Constitution of the United States kept those dogs at bay for a better part of 200 years. But eventually, those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled on, realized only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people to stop reading it. Progressives realized victory required changing history. And to defeat them, we have to correct that.

Progressives know how powerful history is. When these truths are told and the lies get corrected, the game is going to be on. It's pulling the mask off, like Che Guevara. Che may make communism look cool and trendy, but the reality couldn't be more horrific and disgusting. These related political philosophies are not hip and are certainly not taken lightly. Karl Marx defined socialism as a pit stop between capitalism and communism. It isn't an end point. While sometimes this change happens slowly, it always ends badly. And perhaps never worse than with Chairman Mao. Mao used his power to crush the Chinese people. The majority his crimes came in two distinct waves.

Lee Edwards explained.

VOICE: From 1959 to 1961 was the so-called Great Leap Forward, which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture, and they came to him after the first year and said, Chairman, 5 million people have died of famine.

And he said, no matter. Keep going.

The second year they said 10 million Chinese have died.

And he said, no matter, continue.

The third year, 20 million Chinese have died and he said, finally, well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I've ever had.

VOICE: A survivor of the Mao regime recalls.

VOICE: When he was told his people were dying of starvation, Mao said educate the peasant to eat less. Death haze benefits. It fertilizes the land.

GLENN: Mao's approach turned from brutal indifference to revenge. With a cultural revolution, his messing was to destroy both enemies and intellectuals.

VOICE: Professors, teachers added in the corner with a dunce cap. They were made to get down on all fours and bark like a dog.

GLENN: Jung Chang and her family found themselves in Mao's crosshairs.

VOICE: My father was one of the few who stood up to Mao and protested the cultural revolution. My mother was under tremendous pressure to denounce my father. She refused. And so as a result, my mother was made to kneel on broken glass. She was paraded in the streets where children spat and threw stones at her. She was excited to a camp.

GLENN: When her father wrote to protest the cultural revolution, he paid the ultimate price.

VOICE: My mother tried to stop him. My mother said, you don't want to ruin the lives of your children. So he said, what about the children of the victims. As a result, he was imprisoned, touted, driven insane. He was exiled to a camp and died prematurely tragically.

GLENN: Has a victim of Mao's rushing rule. Jung Chang's father was not alone.

VOICE: Some 65 million Chinese died under Maoist communism.

VOICE: Mao just didn't care. And he said for all his project to take off, half of China may well have to die.

VOICE: By a ratio of three or four to 1, we certainly can say that Mao was the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.

GLENN: Which makes this comment by former House White House communications director, Anita Dunn, so incredibly disturbing.

VOICE: Two of my favorite philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa.

GLENN: Dunn's comments, once again, highlight the treatment that leftist totalitarianism receives by too many in our society. Communism is looked at as something we can borrow from, liberally, even today. But the truth is that it is among history's the most proficient killers.

VOICE: According to the Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University Press, nearly 100 million people died under communism in the 20th century. It all flows out of this idea that the communists think that they can create a new society. And anybody who gets in their way, they will cut down. They will kill. They will imprison. And they will eliminate in pursuit of that goal.

GLENN: This was an idea shared by more people than you would think. Including Nobel prize winner and famous playwright, George Bernard Shaw.

VOICE: Now we'll be kind of enough to justify your existence if you're not producing as much as you consume -- (indiscernible) more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, your life does not benefit us, and it can't be of very much use to yourself.

GLENN: And this was actually somewhat subtle for Shaw. He'd also foreshadowed some of the worst atrocities in our planet's history he wrote, I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short, a gentlemanly gas, deadly by all means. But humane, not cruel.

VOICE: Jonah Goldberg, author of the liberal fascism, explains.

VOICE: People like George Bernard Shaw were convinced that overpopulation was this terrible, terrible problem particularly because the unfit, the genetically less desired, were watching the good genetic types. In the late 19th century, there are almost the cream of British intelligencia, embracing eugenics, well into the early 20th century, saying that thousands, millions had to be march off into gas chambers and liquidated.

George Bernard Shaw has this great line where he says, you know, we should do it while playing lovely classical music as we march them into the gas chambers. A lot of people seem to think that this concept of the gas chamber as a tool of social policy was invented by the Nazis. It wasn't. And I mean in this the most gusting, evil way. It was perfected by the Nazis. But the idea of using things like gas chambers to kill off millions of people so that the rest of the good guys could prosper and move to the sunny uplands of history was immensely popular.

GLENN: With 100 million killed, communism exists in a very exclusive club. Alongside the planet's worst communicable diseases like smallpox and the bubonic plague. But it's not just communism. It's the truth of any government with too much power. Some government is of course necessary. But too much is suicidal. Every all-powerful government has elements of what Marx called the revolutionary holocaust.

The relentless pursuit of nirvana. And the price it's worth paying to get there in human life.

It's only by understanding history that we can stop this from happening again and again and again.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.